north atlantic right whale consortium 2017 annual …...pettis, h.m. et al. 2018. north atlantic...

Pettis, H.M. et al. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium annual report card. Amended Report to the North Atlantic Right

Whale Consortium, October 2017.

www.narwc.org

North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium

2017 Annual Report Card AMENDED 8/18/2018

Pertinent information obtained following the distribution of the 2017 report card has been highlighted within the report

card. Specifically, two additional mortality cases were added and several cases were updated/corrected with identification

information.

Pettis, H.M.1, Pace, R.M. III2, Schick, R.S.3, Hamilton, P.K.1

1 Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA, USA 02110 2 Grizzlywhaler Consulting Services, 137 W. Pelham Road, Shutesbury, MA 10702 3 Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 9 Circuit Drive, Durham, NC

27708

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE CONSORTIUM BACKGROUND

The North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) remains one of the most endangered large whales in the

world. Over the past two decades, there has been increasing interest in addressing the problems hampering the

recovery of North Atlantic right whales by using innovative research techniques, new technologies, analyses

of existing databases, and enhanced conservation and education strategies. This increased interest demanded

better coordination and collaboration among all stakeholders to ensure that there was improved access to data,

research efforts were not duplicative, and that findings were shared with all interested parties. The North

Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, initially formed in 1986 by five research institutions to share data among

themselves, was expanded in 1997 to address these greater needs. Currently, the Consortium membership is

comprised of representatives from more than 100 entities including: research, academic, and conservation

organizations; shipping and fishing industries; whale watching companies; technical experts; United States

(U.S.) and Canadian Government agencies; and state authorities.

The Consortium membership is committed to long-term research and management efforts, and to coordinating

and integrating the wide variety of databases and research efforts related to right whales to provide the

relevant management, academic and conservation groups with the best scientific advice and recommendations

on right whale conservation. The Consortium is also committed to sharing new and updated methods with its

membership, providing up-to-date information on right whale biology and conservation to the public, and

maintaining effective communication with U.S. and Canadian Government agencies, state authorities, the

Canadian Right Whale Network, the U.S. Southeast Right Whale Implementation Team, the Atlantic Large

Whale Take Reduction Team, the Atlantic Scientific Review Group, and members of the U.S. Congress. The

Consortium membership supports the maintenance and long-term continuity of the separate research programs

under its umbrella, and serves as executor for database archives that include right whale sightings and photo-

identification data contributed by private institutions, government scientists and agencies, and individuals.

Lastly, the Consortium is interested in maximizing the effectiveness of management measures to protect right

whales, including using management models from other fields.

The Consortium is governed by an Executive Committee and Board members who are elected by the general

Consortium Membership at the Annual Meeting.

2017 ANNUAL NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE REPORT CARD

North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium members agreed in 2004 that an annual “report card” on the status of

right whales would be useful. This report card includes updates on the status of the cataloged population,

mortalities and injury events, and a summary of management and research efforts that have occurred over the

previous 12 months. The Board’s goal is to make public a summary of current research and management

activities, as well as provide detailed recommendations for future activities. The Board views this report as a

valuable asset in assessing the effects of research and management over time.

Essential Population Monitoring and Priorities



www.narwc.org

In the 2009 Report Card to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the Consortium Board identified

key monitoring efforts that must be continued and maintained in order to identify trends in the population, as

well as assess the factors behind any changes in these trends (Pettis, 2009). The key efforts are: (1)

Photographic identification and cataloging of right whales in high-use habitats and migratory corridors,

including, but not limited to, the southeast United States, Cape Cod Bay, Great South Channel, Bay of Fundy,

Scotian Shelf, and Jeffreys Ledge, (2) Monitoring of scarring and visual health assessment from photographic

data, (3) Examination of all mortalities, and (4) Continue using photo-ID and genetic profiling to monitor

population structure and how this changes over time.

The Consortium Board regards the Consortium databases as essential to recovery efforts for the North Atlantic

right whale population. In a review of the federal recovery program for North Atlantic right whales, the

Marine Mammal Commission agreed with the Board’s sentiment, stating that “both databases play critical

roles in right whale conservation” and that the Identification Catalog “is the cornerstone of right whale

research and monitoring” (Reeves et al. 2007). The review went on to recommend that both databases (“both”

here and above refers to the Identification and Sightings databases; there are several Consortium databases

available) be fully funded on a stable basis.

Over the last several years, right whale distribution and patterns of habitat use have shifted, in some cases

dramatically. These shifts have been observed throughout the range of North Atlantic right whales and have

direct implications on research and management activities, as well as on each of the key efforts identified

above. As such, the Board believes that identifying potential extralimital and new critical habitats and

developing alternative survey effort strategies to respond to the distributional changes should be a priority.

These strategies should include efforts to not only locate and identify individual right whales, but also to

ensure that information critical to important monitoring and management efforts (i.e. health assessment, injury

and scarring assessments) is effectively and efficiently collected.

An unprecedented fifteen North Atlantic right whale mortalities were documented in 2017, representing

nearly 3% of the population. This, coupled with the decline in reproductive output by 40% since 2010 (Kraus

et al. 2016), threatens the very survival of this species. To date, anthropogenic factors, including entanglement

in fixed fishing gear and vessel strikes, have been implicated in seven of the fifteen recent mortalities. It is

clear that current management regulations have not been effective at reducing serious entanglement injuries

(Pace et al. 2014) and since 2010, entanglement related deaths accounted for 85% of diagnosed mortalities

(Kraus et al. 2016). Additionally, entanglements reduce survival probability over time for right whales and

moderate and severe injuries from entanglement are increasing (Robbins et al. 2015; Knowlton et al. 2016).

Although several large scale management efforts to mitigate vessel strikes, including shifts in traffic

separation schemes in the Bay of Fundy (2003) and Boston (2007), the designation of the Roseway Basin

(2007) and Great South Channel Areas to be Avoided (2009), and the ship speed restriction rule implemented

in 2008, have previously been shown to be successful (Laist et al. 2014), vessel strikes have been implicated

in two mortalities in and around Cape Cod Bay, U.S., and at least four mortalities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence,

Canada, since May 2016. These mortalities call into question the effectiveness of existing spatial and temporal

seasonal management areas in the U.S. and suggest the immediate need for vessel strike mitigation

implementation in Canada.

Timely and effective efforts to reduce both entanglement and vessel strike mortalities must be a priority for

both the U.S. and Canada if this species is to survive.

Population Status

Population over Time Below are assessments of the number of photo-identified right whales within the population over time based

on five available methods. The presumed alive (PA) counts whales that have been seen at least once in the last

six years. It is a consistently measureable and easily available value, but it assumes that whales remain alive

for six years after their last sighting (which is often not the case) and the estimates for recent years may be

artificially low due to delays in data processing. The Minimum Number Alive (MNA) is the number used in

the NMFS stock assessment reports and counts whales seen in a given year, plus any whale not seen that year-

but seen both before and after. The MNA number is more accurate than PA for older years, but is also not



www.narwc.org

accurate for recent years for the same reason as the PA method, plus the fact that there have been fewer

“after” years to detect a whale. Recently, two additional assessment methods have been developed to better

assess abundance and the results of both are included in this report card for the first time. The Pace et al. 2017

model “adapted a state-space formulation with Jolly-Seber assumptions about population entry (birth and

immigration) to individual resighting histories and fit it using empirical Bayes methodology.” The model

allows for animals to be included in the annual abundance estimates that were never seen or cataloged. The

full methodology is available in the paper. Schick et al. 2013 also developed a model using Bayesian

methodology, but unlike the Pace model, it includes health assessment data (see also Schick et al. 2016 and

Rolland et al. 2016). Here we present preliminary results from this model through 2014. The model was run

through 2015 (the last year for which Health Assessment data were complete) but showed such a precipitous

drop in 2015 (over 100 animals) that we suspect it is an artefact of the end of the time series and so that year’s

data point was not included. The model has not been used to enumerate the living population before; further

testing of it is needed. A brief methodology is provided at the end of the report card. Finally, the report card

number has the weakness of utilizing the PA methodology with its assumptions, but does incorporate animals

that have been photographed but not yet cataloged. The methodology for the report card numbers is also

provided at the end of the report card.

For the graph below, all numbers except the past report card numbers were recalculated using data through

2016, as of September 1, 2017. The PA number is always artificially high as the past year’s MNA numbers

attest. The difference is largely due to whales that have not been seen since before the year in question. For

example, the 30+ animals that the PA number included in 1990 and the MNA did not are whales that have not

been seen since 1990 and are thus very likely dead. The Pace and Schick models remove assumptions of

when a whale is alive and are likely more accurate. The report card numbers are always higher than the other

two methods for the most recent years. However, the fact that the old report card numbers for 2005 to 2009

were close to the eventual MNA numbers suggests that the methodology worked reasonably well through

2009. However, starting in 2010, the two numbers started to diverge. This is partially because fewer whales

were seen so the MNA number may be artificially low. But it also appears that the six year assumption for PA

whales is increasingly erroneous, whales die sooner than six years after their last sighting. The report card

does however capture the recent increase in calves that have not yet been cataloged. This delay in cataloging

is largely due to the right whale distribution shift which has resulted in fewer calves being seen on the feeding

grounds with their mothers and fewer sightings of juveniles anywhere, both of which make cataloging recent

calves challenging.

Figure 1. Assessments of the North Atlantic right whale population based on five available assessment methods. The

Schick model matches the MNA value closely and thus obscures the MNA line. The Pace model shows a point

"estimate" along with error bars which represent 95% of the posteriori probability. The most reliable population number

for 2016 is 451 right whales from the Pace model. Data through 2016 as of September 1, 2017.



www.narwc.org

2016 Assessment of Photographed North Atlantic Right Whales

The ability to monitor North Atlantic right whale vital rates is entirely dependent on the right whale

Identification Database, curated by the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium.

As of September 1, 2017, the database consists of over 900,000 slides, prints, and digital images collected

during the 73,360 sightings of 723 individual right whales photographed since 1935. Each year, 2,000 to 5,000

sightings consisting of 20-30,000 images are added to the identification database. Due to the lag time in

processing data, an estimate of the catalogued population is available through 2016.

Table 1 shows an assessment of photographed whales using the Catalog and the presumed alive method. The

values are based upon the number of photographed whales only; they exclude potential unphotographed

whales and therefore should not be considered a “population estimate”. The best photo-identification

assessment (“Middle”) includes 490 cataloged whales that were presumed to be alive in 2016 because they

were seen in that year, or any time in the prior five years (Knowlton et al. 1994). The assessment also includes

14 calves from 2015 or 2016 that were considered suitable for eventual inclusion in the catalog and 25 other

whales that did not match the catalog, but were re-identified in at least one subsequent year (excluding

sightings in field seasons that spanned the calendar year). A detailed explanation of these calculations is

included at the end of this report.

Table 1. The report card assessment represents an assessment of the number of photographed whales in the North

Atlantic Right Whale Identification Database. A detailed explanation of calculations can be found at the end of this

report. Analysis completed 9/1/17.

Low: 304 individuals 304 Cataloged whales seen in 2016

Middle: 529 individuals 490 Cataloged whales presumed alive in 2016

25 Intermatch whales likely to be added to Catalog

14 Calves from 2015 and 2016 likely to be added to Catalog

High: 736 individuals

679 All Cataloged whales in 2016 minus those known dead

31 All active intermatch codes without 2015 & 2016 calves

26 All uncataloged 2015 and 2016 calves minus dead

Analysis 9/1/17

200

300

400

500

Presumed Alive

MNA

Report card

Pace model

Schick model



www.narwc.org

The report card assessment resulted in a best value of 529 photographed North Atlantic right whales, but this

year we believe the best estimate of the living population is 451 based on the Pace methodology (data through

2016 as of September 1, 2017).

How Well Are We Monitoring? Below is an annual count of sightings, unique individuals, whales presumed alive, kilometers of effort that

have been submitted to the sightings database at the University of Rhode Island, and percent of the population

that is identified each year from 2000 onward (Table 2). The shift in whale distribution has reduced both the

number of sightings contributed to the Catalog and the percent of the population seen annually since 2011.

Data as of September 1, 2017.

Table 2. Annual counts of sightings, unique individuals, presumed living whales, survey effort, and the percentage of the

population seen. Survey effort from dedicated surveys only; opportunistic sightings do not record or report effort. Data as

of September 1, 2017.

Year Sightings Unique

IDs Presumed Living

Population Survey Effort

(1,000 km) % of population

seen

2000 3084 236 342 125 69%

2001 3848 281 360 127 78%

2002 2709 303 383 217 79%

2003 2401 314 396 180 79%

2004 1804 286 405 259 71%

2005 3397 352 420 340 84%

2006 2799 344 431 316 80%

2007 3736 379 445 267 85%

2008 4147 388 467 254 83%

2009 4634 421 483 246 87%

2010 3221 418 501 271 83%

2011 3462 435 501 234 87%

2012 2126 370 502 271 74%

2013 1905 293 504 215 58%

2014 2389 361 501 200 72%

2015 1766 250 490 184 51%

2016 2142 304 490 153 62%

Reproduction

There were five documented calves born in 2017 (Table 3). The average calving interval of 2017 moms was

10.2 years and there were no first-time moms.



www.narwc.org

Table 3. Summary of calving events and associated interval times for North Atlantic right whales from 2008-2017. The

number of available cows, defined as females who have given birth to at least one previous calf and were presumed to be

alive, are followed by the percentage of available cows to successfully calve.

Year Calf

Count Available Cows/

% to calve Average Interval

Median Interval

First time Moms

2008 23 59/39.0% 3.2 3 7

2009 39 58/67.2% 4.0 4 8

2010 19 45/42.2% 3.3 3 4

2011 22 48/45.8% 3.7 3 3

2012 7 64/10.9% 5.4 4 2

2013 20 83/24.1% 4.6 4 7

2014 11 85/12.9% 4.4 4.5 1

2015 17 80/21.3% 5.5 6 4

2016 14* 81/17.3% 6.6 7 4

2017 5 71/7.04% 10.2 8 0

*There were 14 mothers seen with calves in the 2015/2016 season, however, due to a three-way calf switch that

included the presumed loss of one calf that was never photographed, only 13 calves were photographed.

Mortalities

Between 01 November 2016 - 31 December 2017, an unprecedented seventeen right whale mortalities were

documented (Table 4). Twelve mortalities were detected in Canada and five were detected in the U.S. Causes

of death were determined as blunt force trauma for five animals, chronic entanglement for one, and probable

entanglement for one. Ten causes of death could not be determined. The Consortium Board recognizes

necropsies as significant data collection events that provide valuable information on which management and

conservation measures can be (and have been) based. The Board views consistent necropsy response and

support (both financial and personnel) as critical to monitor both right whale recovery and the efficacy of

management actions.

Live Entanglements, Entrapments, and Vessel Strikes

Entanglement and Entrapments

There were ten active entanglement/entrapment cases reported between 01 November 2016 – 31 December

2017, of which eight were new. Table 5 includes newly reported cases as well as pertinent updates to

previously reported cases.

Vessel Strikes:

There were no non-lethal vessel strike injuries documented between 01 November 2016 – 31 December 2017.

Pettis, H.M. et al. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium annual report card. Amended Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, October 2017.

www.narwc.org

Table 4. Documented right whale mortalities 01 November 2016 - 31 December 2017.

Whale # Date Location Sex Age Field # Necropsied? Cause Comments

4694 04/13/2017 4nm north

Barnstable

Harbor, Cape

Cod Bay

F 1 IFAW17-182Eg Yes Blunt force trauma

(confirmed)

25’, fresh carcass

3746 06/06/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

M 10 MARS2017-136 No Undetermined Carcass not recovered

3190 06/18/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

M >17 MARS2017-144 Yes Undetermined Cause of death undetermined, some observations

suggest blunt force trauma

1402 06/19/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

M 33 MARS2017-141 Yes Blunt force trauma

(suspected)

Acute internal hemorrhage

3603 6/21/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

F 11 MARS2017-143 Yes Chronic

entanglement

(confirmed)

Whale was entangled in snow crab gear between 12

June and 16 June 2017. Whale travelled ~8.8nm

miles where it was entangled in a second gear set

between 16 June and 21 June 20-17. Mortality

occurred between 17 June and 21 June 2017.

3512 6/22/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

F 12 MARS2017-155 At sea

sampling on

6/22/2017 and

again on

7/29/2017

Undetermined Carcass resighted on 7/24/2017 at Cedar Cove,

Newfoundland. Carcass sampled on 7/29/2017.

1207 6/23/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

M >37 MARS2017-142 Yes Blunt force trauma

(probable)

Acute internal hemorrhage

Unk 7/6/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

M Unk MARS2017-145 Yes Blunt force trauma

(probable)

Skull (maxilla, premaxilla) fracture

2140 7/19/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

M >26 MARS2017-146 Yes Blunt force trauma

(suspected)

Acute internal haemorrhage

2630 7/21/2017 Church Point,

Newfoundland

M >21 M20170095 Limited shore

sampling

Undetermined This whale was genetically identified to Eg #2630

Unk 7/27/2017 Cape Ray,

Newfoundland

M Unk M20170094 Limited shore

sampling

Undetermined


www.narwc.org

Table 4 (cont’d). Documented right whale mortalities 01 November 2016 - 31 December 2017.

Whale # Date Location Sex Age Field # Necropsied? Cause Comments

1911 7/30/2017 River of Ponds,

Newfoundland

F 28 F20170093 Limited shore

sampling

Undetermined This whale was initially identified genetically as Eg

#4111. However, during final scoring confirmation

it was identified to Eg #1911, the mother of Eg

#4111.

Unk 8/6/2017 Martha’s

Vineyard

M Unk Yes Undetermined

2123 8/9/2017 George’s Bank F 26 No Undetermined Carcass not recovered

2015

Calf of

1604

9/15/2017 Gulf of St.

Lawrence

F 2 MARS2017-312 Yes Necropsy results

pending

Carcass was entangled

Unk 10/23/2017 Nashawena

Island, MA USA

Unk Unk IFAW17-375Eg Yes Undetermined,

necropsy pending

Advanced decomposition, skin and flukes missing.

Length extrapolated to 9m. Samples obtained for

histology and genetics.

2611 11/7/2017 Madaket Harbor/

Eel Point,

Nantucket, MA

USA

F 21 IFAW17-401Eg Yes Undetermined,

necropsy pending

Advanced decomposition. Length of 13-14m

extrapolated from length, fluke width, and snout to

blowhole and measured total length of blubber coat.

Samples obtained for genetics.


www.narwc.org

Table 5. Right whale entanglements and status updates 01 November 2016 – 31 December 2017. Newly reported entanglements (carrying gear) are bolded.

Whale#

Date of First

Entanglement

Sighting

First

location Sex

Age

(current) Comments

3821 01/07/2012 Cape Cod

Bay

Unk 9 Previously entangled in 2009. Resighted Jan-Feb 2012 (CCB), May 2012 (GSC), April 2013 (CCB)

and Apr 2014 (CCB). There was no evidence of significant change in entanglement configuration at

last sighting. Resighted Feb 2017 (SNE). Unclear whether gear remains. Sighting on 05/17/2017

indicates that whale is likely gear free.

3823 09/22/2016 Stellwagen

Bank

F 9 Whale carried line (including rostrum wrap), buoys and weighted gear. Partial disentanglement that

likely cut the rostrum wrap. Telemetry buoy attached, found drifting not attached to whale on

9/26/2016. Confirmed gear free on 3/6/2017.

3405 12/04/2016 New York F 13 Whale has line and monofilament webbing around rostrum and across right blowhole over the

back. Other segments of line may be held in place by webbing. The amount of trailing line is

unknown. Not yet resighted.

3530 01/05/2017 17nm east of

Little

Cumberland

Island, GA

M 13 Line at the head trailing at least one whale's length aft of the animal. Two lines emerged from

the right side of the mouth and two twisted lines exited the left side, effectively forming a bridle

at the area of the blowholes). The team also felt as though there was likely heavy gear attached

to one or more of the trailing lines. Disentanglement effort successfully removed 450 feet of

heavy line and a large crab pot. Aerial documentation confirmed the whale to be gear-free.

4146 04/23/2017 Cape Cod

Bay

F 6 Length of yellowish line caught in the left side of the mouth. The line is doubled on itself and

trails aft of the flukes by about a body length. There appears to be a jumble of line and/or

netting near the end of the trailing gear. Disentanglement response unable to work whale. Not

yet resighted.

BK01BOF15 7/5/2017 East of

Miscou

Island, New

Brunswick

Unk >2 Snow crab gear on whale appeared to consist of a buoy and line exiting the left side of the mouth

(~3 body lengths long) that was fouled on line exiting the right side of the mouth that went down

to weighted gear. The animal was surging out of the water, thrashing with its tail, rolling and

bringing its head out of the water. There was extensive rope burn all over the animal (suggesting

a constantly changing configuration) with some bleeding at the peduncle region. These factors

suggest that the whale had recently become entangled. Disentanglement effort on 7/5/2017

successful and whale confirmed gear free on 7/29/2017.

1317 7/8/2017 East of

Miscou

Island, New

Brunswick

M 34 Aerial survey team observed whale caught in snow crab buoy line, with rope through the mouth

and over the rostrum. Response team not able to relocate whale, however line was found floating

at the surface with a bitter end. Some of the line was hauled and discovered it was still attached

to a trap/trawl. Whale was resighted on 7/25/2017, 8/18/2017, and 8/25/2017 and no gear was

visible.


www.narwc.org

Table 5 (cont’d). Right whale entanglements and status updates 01 November 2016 – 31 December 2017. Newly reported entanglements (carrying gear) are bolded.

Whale#

Date of First

Entanglement

Sighting

First

location Sex

Age

(current) Comments

4123 7/9/2017 East of

Miscou

Island, New

Brunswick

M 6 Whale caught in a snow crab gear buoy line at minimum, with multiple body wraps and

weighted gear heading to the seafloor. The origin of those wraps appeared to be the mouthline

and/or the flipper(s). Disentangled on 7/10/2017. Whale resighted on 7/29/2017 in the Bay of

Fundy gear free.

4094 7/19/2017 East of

Miscou

Island, New

Brunswick

F 7 Entanglement in snow crab gear consists of a buoy line lodged in the right mouthline and

trailing aft to a set of buoys with some line sinking, suggesting some weighted gear. It is possible

that the buoy line could exit the left side of the mouth, near the gape, and travel under the

throat, it seems perhaps more likely that the buoy line is twisted back on itself and lodged within

a few plates of baleen on the right side of the mouth. No disentanglement response permitted.

Not yet resighted.

3245 8/28/2017 ~20miles east

of Perce,

Gaspe

Peninsula

M 15 Whale entangled in what appears to be heavy line. Type unknown. The whale was essentially

hogtied, with line through its mouth, leading to wraps of the peduncle. The whereabouts of any

bitter ends are unknown but based on behavior and line impressed into the right flank, it

appears the line leads to heavy weight. No disentanglement response permitted. Not yet

resighted.



www.narwc.org

Monitoring Health of Injured Right Whales

Efforts to better track and monitor the health of anthropogenic injury of North Atlantic right whales were

initiated in January 2013. These efforts aim to support annually mandated human induced serious injury

and mortality determinations, to reduce the likelihood of undetected and unreported events, and to better

assess both short and long term impacts of injury on right whale health. Previously and newly injured

right whales with vessel strikes, attached fixed gear, or with moderate to severe entanglement injuries in

the absence of attached gear (see Knowlton et al. 2016 for review of injury types) are flagged for

monitoring biannually. Each whale’s pre- and post-injury health conditions are evaluated using the visual

health assessment technique (Pettis et al. 2004) and a determination of the impact of injury on health is

made. Based on the available sighting and health information, whales are assigned to one of four

categories: 1) Evidence of declining health coinciding with injury; 2) Inconclusive (this determination was

assigned to animals when a: evidence of declining health exists but it was unclear whether or not it was

linked to injury and/or b: images/information were inadequate to fully assess health condition visually); 3)

No indication of declining health caused by injury based on available images/information; and 4)

Extended Monitor - no indication of declining health or whale’s condition has improved but whale will

remain on monitoring list because of injury severity and/or is still carrying gear. This last category was

created to capture whales without current health impacts related to injury, but with injuries that have the

potential to negatively impact future health condition (e.g. some severe vessel strikes, whales carrying

gear, etc.).

Between 01 June 2016 and 31 May 2017, twelve new severe injury events were documented for right

whales, all of which were entanglement related. Of these twelve, seven exhibited declining condition

coinciding with injury. The impact of injury on the health of the remaining five whales was inconclusive.

Nine whales previously on the monitoring list were removed: seven became presumed dead and two were

removed due to sustained improvement in health condition following injury. As of June 2017, the Serious

Injury/Human Impact list includes 61 whales with 68 injuries documented from March 2004 through 31

May 2017 (Table 6). The majority of the injuries are entanglement related (51/61, 83.6%) followed by

vessel strikes (9/61, 14.8%). There is one whale on the list with an injury of unknown origin (Table 7).

Table 6. Since the inception of the injured right whale monitoring protocol, the number of injured whales and newly

reported injuries has varied by year. The number of whales included on the injured whale list is given for each

biannual report and is followed parenthetically by how many of those were newly detected injuries. There are

currently seven whales on the injured list with multiple injuries.

*The first injured whale monitoring report was distributed in June 2013

and therefore does not include a comparative number of newly reported

injuries.

Year

kslafjskadl;jdfkl;saj

kl;jfdsakl;jfk

Fjdkalfjdksla;jkl;

June

December

2013 33* 32 (2)

2014 45 (16) 50 (6)

2015 51 (4) 59 (9)

2016 60 (4) 63(8)

2017 61(4)



www.narwc.org

Table 7. Impact of anthropogenic injury on right whale visual health by injury type based on assessments of

photographs pre- and post-injury for all North Atlantic right whales on the Serious Injury/Human Impact list

as of June 2017.

Entanglement Vessel Strike Other Total

Gear Present No Gear Present

Decline in Condition 8 11 2 1 22

Inconclusive 10 15 5 0 30

No Decline in Condition 1 4 1 0 6

Extended Monitor 1 1 1 0 3

Total 20 31 9 1 61*

*This represents the number of whales on the monitoring list. Seven of these whales have each had second

injuries documented since their initial injury sighting. For purposes of this report, whales are included under

the category representing their most recent injury.

Aerial and Vessel-based Sighting Summary: 2016

Prior to the 2017 Report Card, sighting information was reported for the time period following the

previous NARWC Annual Meeting. However, that reporting included the current year for which not all

data has necessarily been received and/or processed. Therefore, beginning with the 2017 Report Card,

sighting summaries will be presented for the previous calendar year. Cataloged sighting information for

the year 2016 (analyzed 01 September 2017) is summarized below and includes survey, research, and

opportunistic sightings. Months with sightings and major contributing organizations (>10% total sightings

for region) are listed after total number of sightings. Summaries of survey types (if available) are listed

below each region.

Major Contributing Organizations

CCS: Center for Coastal Studies

CWI: Canadian Whale Institute

DFO: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

DN: Doug Nowacek

FWRI: Florida Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute

GDNR: Georgia Department of Natural Resources

MICS: Mingan Island Cetacean Studies

NEAq: New England Aquarium

NEFSC: Northeast Fisheries Science Center

PCAN: Parks Canada

QLM: Quoddy Links Marine

ROSE: Rob Seeburger

S2S: Sea to Shore Alliance

UNCW: University of North Carolina,

Wilmington

VAQF: Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science

Center Foundation

WHOI: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Southeast United States (sightings: 344, January – March, November; FWRI, GDNR, S2S, DN)

Aerial and vessel surveys, biopsy darting, tagging

Mid-Atlantic (includes south of Cape Cod) (sightings: 12, January - February; NEFSC, ROSE,

VAQF/UNCW)

Aerial surveys

Great South Channel (sightings: 171, April – June, November; NEFSC, CCS)

Aerial and vessel surveys

New England (Massachusetts Bay/Cape Cod Bay) (sightings: 854, January – May, September, December;

CCS, WHOI)

Aerial and vessel surveys, habitat sampling, drone based photogrammetry

Gulf of Maine (sightings: 111, April – June, August – September, November; CCS, NEFSC)

Aerial and vessel surveys



www.narwc.org

Bay of Fundy (sightings: 509, July - October; NEAq, QLM)

Vessel surveys

Roseway Basin (sightings: 2, June, August; NEFSC, DFO)

Vessel and aerial surveys

North (sightings: 136, July - October; CWI, MICS)

Vessel surveys

East (sightings: 3, September; PCAN)

Opportunistic

Right Whale Project Requests for NARWC Data Use in 2017

- Assessment of right whale seasonal distribution along the western shore of Mass Bay in order to assess

the feasibility of using weak ropes during certain parts of the winter and spring

- Marine mammal mapping for assessment of offshore drilling site

- Biophysical and Ecological Overview of the Cape Breton Trough Area of Interest

- Development and application of novel statistical models to cope with different survival and movement

probabilities when NARW subpopulations subscribe to different migratory strategies

- Analytic support for development and implementation of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

- Examine the impacts of offshore drilling and seismic testing within and around the critical habitat and

migratory corridor of the North Atlantic right whale population

- Combining genetic and photo-identification data to improve abundance estimates for the North Atlantic

right whale

Management and Mitigation Activities

Canada

- In November 2016, the Government of Canada announced the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP), which

includes a commitment to address the threats to three marine mammal populations: Southern Resident

Killer Whale (SRKW), St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga, and North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW).

- In response to the deaths of 12 right whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (GSL) between early June and

mid-September, DFO and partners conducted seven full necropsies and sampled another five carcasses.

Information from these necropsies and sampling contributed to an understanding of the causes of death of

six of the right whales.

- Additional activities undertaken in response to the GSL mortality event:

- Issued notice to the commercial fishing industry in the GSL asking fishermen to watch for whales

and to report any sightings.

- Broadcast notices on the marine radio system to request shipping and fishing industries be on alert

for whales.

- In addition to the toll-free number and the Whale Alert website, individuals can use the

established VHF channel 16 to report on observations of dead or injured whales and the Coast

Guard will relay the information to the appropriate authorities.

- Worked with partners to patrol the coast to monitor and assess any reports of dead or distressed

whale sightings.

- Surveillance flights to confirm positions of live right whales in the GSL.

- The Government of Canada implemented a temporary mandatory slow-down of vessels 20 meters

or more to a maximum of 10 knots when travelling in the western Gulf of St. Lawrence from the

Quebec north shore to just north of Prince Edward Island. This represents a reduction of speed of

approximately one third, assuming average vessel speeds of 15 knots.



www.narwc.org

- Closed Snow Crab Fishing Area 12 in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence early (all fishing gear

was removed from the water).

- Other fixed gear fisheries restricted to shallow water (less than 20 fathoms), resulting in some

fisheries not opening or having delayed openings.

- New requirement for the halibut long-line fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to tend gear.

- Provided $56,000 towards the Whales Habitat and Listening Experiment (WHaLE) to support the

development of a real-time whale alert system for mariners, which can inform measures to help

reduce whale and ship collisions in Canadian waters.

United States

- NMFS received five requests for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting

geophysical survey activity in the Atlantic Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA), NMFS requested comments on its proposal to issue incidental harassment authorizations (IHA)

to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. Comments and information were due

no later than July 6, 2017.

- On 25 August 2017, NOAA Fisheries declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for North Atlantic

right whales throughout their range, based on elevated strandings along the Atlantic coast, predominantly

in the Gulf of St. Lawrence region in Canada.

- NOAA called for 12 Dynamic Management Area (DMA) voluntary speed reduction zones between 01

November 2016 and 01 October 2017:

2/21/2017 16nm S of Martha’s Vineyard 3/6/2017 16nm S of Martha’s Vineyard 3/21/2017 22nm SW of Nantucket 3/25/2017 12nm ENE of Boston 4/9/2017 19nm SSE of Nantucket 4/19/2017 15nm SSW of Nantucket 5/4/2017 15nm SSW of Block Island

5/19/2017 80nm E of New York 6/15/2017 13nm S of Nantucket 7/3/2017 2nm S of Nantucket 7/16/2017 2nm S of Nantucket 7/29/2017 S of Nantucket to Nantucket

Sound, W to Vineyard Sound

2017 North Atlantic Right Whale Publications/Reports

Reports and publications that utilized NARWC databases in 2017 and/or those of general interest to

the right whale community are listed and hyperlinked below.

Brillant, S. W., Wimmer, T., Rangeley, R. W., Taggart, C. T. (2017). A timely opportunity to protect

North Atlantic right whales in Canada. Mar Policy, 81, 160-166.

Browning, C. L., Wise, C. F., Wise, J. P. (2017). Prolonged particulate chromate exposure does not inhibit

homologous recombination repair in North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) lung cells. Toxicol

Appl Pharm.

Burgess, E. A., Hunt, K. E., Kraus, S. D., Rolland, R. M. (2017). Adrenal responses of large whales:

integrating fecal aldosterone as a complementary biomarker to glucocorticoids. Gen Comp Endocr 252,

103-110.

Convertino, M., Valverde, L. (2017). Probabilistic Analysis of the Impact of Vessel Speed Restrictions on

Navigational Safety: Accounting for the Right Whale Rule. J Nav 1-18. doi:10.1017/S0373463317000480

Corkeron, P., Rolland, R. M., Hunt, K. E., Kraus, S. D. (2017). A right whale pootree: classification trees

of faecal hormones identify reproductive states in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena

glacialis). Conserv Phys 5(1).

Cronin, T. W., Fasick, J. I., Schweikert, L. E., Johnsen, S., Kezmoh, L. J., Baumgartner, M. F. (2017).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X16307989





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016648016304488




https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-navigation/article/probabilistic-analysis-of-the-impact-of-vessel-speed-restrictions-on-navigational-safety-accounting-for-the-right-whale-rule/BDEB9D64EBD4F5274F3B4203CD77130F

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-navigation/article/probabilistic-analysis-of-the-impact-of-vessel-speed-restrictions-on-navigational-safety-accounting-for-the-right-whale-rule/BDEB9D64EBD4F5274F3B4203CD77130F

https://academic.oup.com/conphys/article/doi/10.1093/conphys/cox006/3064241/A-right-whale-pootree-classification-trees-of



http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/1717/20160067



www.narwc.org

Coping with copepods: do right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) forage visually in dark waters? Phil Trans R

So. B, 372(1717), 20160067.

Esfahanian, M., Erdol, N., Gerstein, E., Zhuang, H. (2017). Two-stage detection of North Atlantic right

whale upcalls using local binary patterns and machine learning algorithms. Appl Acoust 120:158-166.

Fasick, J. I., Baumgartner, M. F., Cronin, T. W., Nickle, B., Kezmoh, L. J. (2017), Visual predation

during springtime foraging of the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Mar Mam Sci

doi:10.1111/mms.12417

Pace, R.M., Corkeron, P.J., Kraus, S.D. (2017). State–space mark–recapture estimates reveal a recent

decline in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Eco Evol 1-12.

Pettis H.M., Rolland R.M., Hamilton P.K., Knowlton A.R., Burgess E.A., Kraus S.D. (2017). Body

condition changes arising from natural factors and fishing gear entanglements in North Atlantic right

whales Eubalaena glacialis. Endang Species Res 32:237-249.

van der Hoop, J.M., Corkeron, P.J., Henry, A.G., Knowlton, A.R., Moore, M.J. (2017). Predicting lethal

entanglements as a consequence of drag from fishing gear. Marine Pollution Bulletin 115: 91–104.

van der Hoop, J.M., Nowacek, D.P., Moore, M.J., Triantafyllou, M.S. (2017). Swimming kinematics and

efficiency of entangled North Atlantic right whales. Endang Spec Res 32:1-17.

Reports

Daoust, P.-Y., Couture, E.L., Wimmer, T., Bourque, L. (2017). Incident Report: North Atlantic

Right Whale Mortality Event in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 2017. Collaborative Report Produced by:

Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Marine Animal Response Society, and Fisheries and Oceans

Canada. 224 pp.

Books

Laist, D. W. (2017). North Atlantic Right Whales: From Hunted Leviathan to Conservation Icon. JHU

Press.





http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mms.12417/full



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.3406/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.3406/full

https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00800





http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2017/32/n032p001.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2017/32/n032p001.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5dxr_bW3qHrdXZWR0ZYbEV1VnM/view






www.narwc.org

REFERENCES

Knowlton, A.R., Kraus, S.D., Kenney, R.D. (1994). Reproduction in North Atlantic right whales

(Eubalaena glacialis). Can J Zool Vol. 72:1297-1305.

Knowlton, A.R., Robbins, J., Landry, S., McKenna, H., Kraus, S.D., Werner, T.B. (2016). Effects of

fishing gear strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conserv Bio. 30: 318-328.

Kraus S.D., Kenney R.D., Mayo C.A., McLellan W.A., Moore M.J., Nowacek D.P. (2016). Recent

scientific publications cast doubt on North Atlantic right whale future. Front Mar Sci 3:137. doi:

10.3389/fmars.2016.00137

Laist, D. W., Knowlton, A. R., Pendleton, D. (2014). Effectiveness of mandatory vessel speed limits for

protecting North Atlantic right whales. Endang Spec Res 23(2), 133-147.

Pace, R. M., Cole, T. V. N., Henry, A. G. (2014). Incremental fishing gear modifications fail to

significantly reduce large whale serious injury rates. Endang Spec Res 26, 115–126. doi:

10.3354/esr00635

Pace, R.M., Corkeron, P.J., Kraus, S.D. (2017). State–space mark–recapture estimates reveal a recent

decline in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecol Evo. 1-12.

Pettis H.M., Rolland R.M., Hamilton P.K., Brault S., Knowlton A.R., Kraus S.D. (2004). Visual health

assessment of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) using photographs. Can J Zool 82:8-19

Pettis, H.M. (2009). North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium Annual Report Card (01 November 2007 –

30 April 2009). International Whaling Commission Annual Meeting, May 2009. Reference Document

SC/61/BRG1.

Reeves, R.R., Read, A.J., Lowry, L., Katona, S.K., Bonnes, D.J. (2007). Report of the North Atlantic

Right Whale Program Review. Marine Mammal Commission. Bethesda, Maryland.

Robbins, J., Knowlton, A.R., Landry, S. (2015). Apparent survival of North Atlantic right whales after

entanglement in fishing gear. Biol Conserv 191: 421-427.

Rolland R.M., Schick R.S., Pettis H.M., Knowlton A.R., Hamilton P.K., Clark J.S., Kraus S.D. (2016)

Health of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) over three decades: from individual health to

demographic and population health trends. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 542:265-282

Schick, R.S., Kraus, S.D., Rolland, R.M., Knowlton, A.R., Hamilton, P.K., Pettis, H.M., Kenney, R.D.,

Clark, J.S. (2013). Using hierarchical bayes to understand movement, health, and survival in the

endangered North Atlantic right whale. PLoS ONE 8(6): e64166. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064166

Schick, R.S., Kraus, S.D., Rolland, R.M., Knowlton, A.R., Hamilton, P.K., Pettis, H.M., Thomas L.,

Harwood J., Clark J.S. (2016). Effects of model formulation on estimates of health in individual right

whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Pages 977-985 in A. N. Popper and A. Hawkins, editors. Effects of Noise

on Aquatic Life II. Springer Press.



www.narwc.org

Methods for assessing the number of photo-identified right whales within the population over time

Schick Model Population Estimate In Schick et al. 2013, we built a hierarchical Bayesian model that estimates latent, or true, health of

individual right whales using observed data of their visual health status. Specifically, health is estimated

as a function of the animal’s observed body condition, observed skin condition, observed rake mark

status, observed cyamid load, and the animal’s age (in years). In addition to estimating health and

movement status, in the model we estimate individual survival from one month to the next using a

Bernoulli model:

Pr(𝑆𝑖𝑘,𝑡 = 1) = 𝐵𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑖(𝜃𝑖𝑘,𝑡)

𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡(𝜃𝑖𝑘,𝑡) = 𝑥𝑖𝑘,𝑡𝛽

where the design vector (𝑋𝛽) contains latent health status and a fixed effect for sighting region. Note that

in our model iterations to date, we have not been able to differentiate the parameters for zone—so these

are all fixed. Essentially, survival is a function of health, which in turn is a function of age and observed

health.

The output from this is a monthly survival probability for each animal. In these estimates, we have three

fates: 1) observed dead; 2) estimated month of death; and 3) assumed alive. Because the second fate is

stochastic, there is a distribution around the most likely month of death. Here we simply depict the most

likely month of death for each animal, i.e. the median posterior probability. By extracting these

probabilities, we assemble a vector of the month denoting each of the three states: observed dead,

estimated died, and assumed alive. Using that vector, we can tally the population size in each month or

year combination.

We ran the model using new data. Specifically, we ran the model using data as of September 1, 2017

including photo-identification data complete through 2016 and Visual Health data complete through

December 2015. We also included new effort data – extracting from the right whale database, maintained

at the University of Rhode Island, all the effort up through December 2016.

Since the year of death is an estimated parameter in a Bayesian framework, we can initialize this for each

animal in a variety of ways. For example, we could start the model run with the assumption that all

animals are alive up through the end of the data (save of course for the known-dead animals whose time

of death is not estimated but rather known). Alternatively, we could assume that the animals are dead after

they have not been seen for 6 years. Finally, the approach we have taken here is to initialize the month of

death vector using the longest observed sighting gap for that animal. For example, if an animal’s longest

sighting gap was 4 months, then the starting value for the estimated month of death would be 4 months

after their last sighting. If in contrast, and animal’s longest sighting gap was 18 months, then the starting

value would be 18 months following their last sighting. We feel this approach accounts for the sighting

heterogeneity present in the sightings database; however, we stress that this is simply a way to initialize

the imputed time of death. Through the runs of the Gibbs sampler, the chain should converge on the

posterior probability, regardless of initial value. We are currently investigating the impacts of these

alternate model formulations on the final tally of imputed deaths each year. In addition, here we have only

presented the median posterior probability for estimated time of death. A fuller analysis will include

integrating across the posterior to show the median and 95% Bayesian Credible Interval for animals alive.

Report Card Population Assessment Calculation

We have developed standardized criteria that can be applied each year to get a low, middle (best estimate)

and upper number of whales in the population as determined from Catalog data. One term needs to be

explained to understand these numbers. Whales are given temporary intermatch codes if 1) two or more

sightings match each other, and 2) neither have been matched to a catalog whale. Some of these whales

will eventually be matched to existing cataloged whales and others will be determined to be “new” to the

Catalog and assigned a number. Once an intermatch whale is given a Catalog number, or matched to

another intermatch code whale, the intermatch code is made inactive.



www.narwc.org

LOWER

To determine the lower bound, we simply count the number of unique cataloged whales identified the

year before. Because of delays in processing data, this number is lower than the eventual total number of

whales seen alive in that year.

MIDDLE

The middle bound is determined by summing three categories:

1) All whales presumed to be alive in that year (i.e. seen in the last six years),

2) Intermatch whales that are likely to be added to the Catalog. This is calculated by first finding

all intermatch codes that span two or more years (both those that are active and those that

were matched and made inactive), removing all calves and any SEUS whales whose sightings

span two years only because they are seen in December and January of the same field season.

Then, we determine which of those intermatch whales have Catalog numbers and what

percent of those were new to the catalog (i.e. had not been matched to an existing cataloged

whale). The remaining, unidentified intermatch whales are then multiplied by that fraction to

determine how many are likely new to the Catalog (e.g. if only 20% of the matched

intermatch whales were new, then 20% of the unmatched intermatch whales are likely new).

That number is then added to the count of calves born more than two years earlier that are

unmatched with active intermatch codes (indicating there is enough information to potentially

match them in the future). Process changed Oct. 2009.

3) Calves from the last two years that have not been cataloged. We make an assessment of

whether there is enough photographic information to likely be able to match them to future

sightings and thus eventually assign them a Catalog number. We then sum those that will

likely be cataloged.

UPPER

The upper bound is also the sum of three categories:

1) All Cataloged whales minus those whose carcasses were identified. Even whales missing for

30 years included.

2) All active intermatch whales minus calves from the last two years.

3) All calves from the last two years minus those known to be dead.

north atlantic right whale consortium 2017 annual …...pettis, h.m. et al. 2018. north atlantic...

Documents